X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re Pinnacle Sports

    This is a reply to Pier's excellent article on Pinnacle sports.The link for comments on the article is currently not working.
    I appreciate that Pier is concerned that the security of players' money with Pinnacle could be better if Pinnacle still held its Alderney licence and its players' money had to be held in ring-fenced accounts - especially since Pinnacle has been under investigation.However,from the point of view of its betting customers,Pinnacle have not done anything wrong.They are entitled to operate from Curacao.It is not normal in the betting world for players accounts/money to be ring-fenced.In my experience,Pinnacle's conduct has always been exemplary.They always have,and still do,provide a unique betting experience.
    I feel obliged to point out here that while bookmakers are fully entitled limit or close winning accounts,it is a huge plus from the players' point of view if they do not.Look at it this way,if you bet consistently to similar stakes over a lengthy period with bookmakers who do restrict/limit/close down winners,you will wind up being closed or restricted if you win,but not if you lose.So the amount that you can win from such bookies is effectively limited,but the amount that you can lose is not.I believe that this is only partly reflected in the ratings.The people who think bet365 are great have never been restricted by them.

  • Why have PinnacleSports not made public the fact that they gave their licence back? Why have they not made an announcement to their users that their funds are not as secure as they were in December 2012? Very suspicious, especially considering what they did in the USA.

    As a player, I am happy and not seen any difference with Pinnacle, but then again I guess Full Tilt Poker players thought the same a couple of years ago....hence perhaps there is more to it all.

    Comment


    • quincunx,

      the average bettor and BMR reader is a recreational player and the BMR ratings need to take in consideration that.

      We never made any claims to represent other categories of players. Actually we recently introduced the option for users to declare an interest in participating in focus groups to determine ratings for specific player types, like professional, arber, bonus hunter, etc, and very few have showed an interest.

      Surely the site and myself have not been able to catch a break in the last couple of months with the result that the forum has been offline or unavailable (some of its features still are). Hopefully if problems settle down and we can start build the community we may be able to have ratings reflecting experiences of all the various player categories.

      Back to Pinnacle, the sportsbook is great for players, but like everyone else is only as good as its last payout. And being privy to certain information which I'm not going to share just yet as it has nothing to do with players, I believe the hit they took in the US has forced them to be very careful in the way they spend/invest money.

      For whatever reason they abandoned Alderney, since they made such a big deal when they obtained the license, they should have had the decency to inform their customers.

      But then again if they were decent people I guess they would not have been involved with organized crime figures.

      Comment


      • Hi,Pier.I have no personal experience of this [since I don't hunt bonuses],but I have read on some forums that bet365 have been restricting bonus hunters/scalpers.Perfectly understandable,but Pinnacle have never needed to offer bonuses.
        Regarding Pinnacle,they will no doubt continue for as long as they are profitable - providing of course that the authorities allow them to.That is the way it should be with any business provided they don't cheat - which Pinnacle never have.It is unrealistic to expect them to draw attention to the surrender of their licence when that would be to their disadvantage.
        As regards the US authorities,their actions are motivated by money rather than any altruistic dislike of criminal activity.They want to make sure that any money from gambling by US citizens remains within the USA.That's why they hit Neteller with a huge fine and effectively froze its customers' funds - many of its customers were US Citizens but that didn't bother the so-called department of Justice.The DOJ referred to the online gambling industry as a 'colossal criminal conspiracy' - conveniently ignoring the fact that online gambling is perfectly legal in some countries,including the UK.

        Comment


        • Sorry,when I referred to the surrender of Pinnacle's licence I meant their Alderney License - they still have their Curacao License.

          Comment


          • The reason why the US DoJ is prosecuting online gambling is not the point here.

            Vincent 'Vinny Gorgeous' Basciano, Jerald “Rocket” Branca, Steven “Fats” Diano, John “Tugs” Tognino, Michael “Chinese Mike” Duong are not characters from a movie, but (alleged) Pinnacle Sports agents.

            Now there is no doubt that because of the nature of the business in the US, sports bookmaking is historically intertwined with organized crime, but that doesn't make it right.

            The headline under Bookmakers Review originally read "resources to educate and inform online bettors". Knowing that Pinnacle Sports offers competitive odds, high limits and fast payments is only part of the picture, the one that every sports betting portal shares with its readers.

            But players need to see the full picture to make informed decisions, which for Pinnacle Sports includes knowing that the Alderney license that was supposed to provide an extra layer of protection is now gone and that the company in the US has regular deals with gentlemen accused of relations with organized crime.

            Comment


            • Taking up Quincunx's comment "It is not normal in the betting world for players accounts/money to be ring-fenced" .. that may well be the case if you are referring to Costa Rica and some other dodgy places but in the UK and Australia that is most certainly incorrect as they are all required by legislation to do so.

              No bookmaker should be permitted to use player funds to finance their own operations. I wouldn't deposit funds at any such site.

              Now, whether or not Pinnacle are required under their Curacao licence to do so doesn't necessarily mean that they don't keep player funds segregated. Some time ago I read on their website that they do and I even emailed them on the subject and they assured me that they do (for what that's worth).

              So, whilst I shall remain observant on this issue, for the present I have no reason to believe that my funds aren't safe with Pinnacle. Certainly I've seen no evidence of any change in their always super fast payout performances to suggest otherwise.

              Comment


              • For what it's worth this is what Pinnacle have told me:

                "Our customer funds are segregated from corporate funds and the company ensures that sufficient funds are available at all times to meet our obligations to customers.

                We are in the process of applying for a UK gaming license with the UK Gambling Commission.

                We felt this license would best serve our company in the future and as such we surrendered our Alderney License."

                Comment


                • The other UK bookies won't like it if Pinnacle make it on to oddschecker !

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hareeba

                    For what it's worth this is what Pinnacle have told me:


                    "Our customer funds are segregated from corporate funds and the company ensures that sufficient funds are available at all times to meet our obligations to customers.


                    We are in the process of applying for a UK gaming license with the UK Gambling Commission.


                    We felt this license would best serve our company in the future and as such we surrendered our Alderney License."

                    The keyphrase is "for what is worth".

                    Comment


                    • The reason they gave Hareeba for no longer having the Alderney licence is almost cringeworthy and an insult to intelligence.

                      Now Pinnacle say that they are getting a UK licence and they do not need an Alderney licence? Yet they happened to send out a number of press releases related to being so happy about gaining an Alderney licence last year. To quote their Marketing Director:
                      “Since our establishment in 1998, we have enjoyed an unrivalled player reputation for honesty and transparency.....We anticipate accelerated acquisition of players attracted by the best odds and highest limits online and reassured by the additional credibility our Alderney eGambling licence provides.”

                      By not telling anyone, affiliates and more importantly their customers that they had "surrendered" the Alderney licence must send alarm bells. They DO NOT have a UK licence YET.

                      What would players think if Bet365 surrendered its UK licence, did not tell anyone and once they got found out and asked why, they would simply say that they have applied for a Malta licence and that would be serve their company in the future?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by quincunx

                        The other UK bookies won't like it if Pinnacle make it on to oddschecker !

                        Pinnaclesports have been on OddsChecker for some time, I think even before the Alderney licence was approved.

                        Comment


                        • hmmm
                          i was sure my money are in safe place...
                          never had problems with them...
                          now, when offshore bookies are in danger and almost every moth we hear bad things from them i'm afraid a little bit
                          but they are still 4.5+
                          is it fair?

                          Comment


                          • The BMR ratings are not financial ratings trying to anticipate the future.
                            The ratings represent past player experiences, so players should not use them as an indication of how financially solid a bookmaker is.

                            I've been telling players to stay away from US-facing operators for the last two years, but I cannot downgrade Pinnacle or 5Dimes because some other bookmaker sites, alleged to be A+ sportsbooks, are in trouble.

                            Comment


                            • 4.5 is fair because Pinnacle have always operated their business well and provided excellent service.They have always paid out promptly - if you withdraw under 3,000 dollars,they pay you out in 30 minutes - that is faster than Sbobet.Pinnacle Sports paid me out on a game one time,and SBObet kept me waiting for days to even settle my bet on that game, and then they voided my bet which should have been a winner.Bet365 restrict winners and Pinnacle do not.So if it wasn't for all this trouble started by the US authorities - who are motivated by money - Pinnacle would rate a '5'.

                              Comment

                              Top 5 Reviews

                              Pinnacle
                              Bookmaker
                              5Dimes
                              William Hill
                              Bet365
                              Working...
                              X